A serious question about chemtrails

Originally posted by network dude

Originally posted by profundus
Do me a favor, if you're gonna have a debate with me...stop EDITING your comments. Make your comment, and make sure you know what you want to say, before you click "reply". I've noticed you have a bad habit of doing that. Make your point, and make it clear the 1st time around. Say what you mean, and mean what you say! Don't be changing your script after you click "reply".

It's not his fault. "THEY" made him do it.

They have control of his mind. IT"S A GIANT CONSPIRACY!!!!!!

No! That's called a "double minded man". One that can't make up his mind. One who is unsure of himself. One who should not be trusted because he can't even trust his own words.

reply to post by profundus

Well, yeah, you did....every time you deny the fact that geoengineering is a reality being played in REAL LIFE and not via a computer modulation.

Can you explain how asking for evidence for something equates with not believing "that 'science' can be used against us?"

And, the same people that "stopped" the war, are the people that "started" the war.

Do you believe every conspiracy theory ever invented?

You're too stuck in you're own little box, to even think controlling the weather was a possibility.

Actually, knowing what is in the box (as opposed to your approach) lets me know how difficult controlling the weather would be but it does not tell me it's impossible.

Meanwhile, scientists were thinking about changing the weather and ways to do it, DECADES ago.

Yup. And they were thinking about spacecraft powered by atomic bombs too. Scientists think about a lot of stuff. That's their job.

Your thinking, still has us using payphones...and mail carriers on horseback.

No. But your ignorance about what science actually is, would.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Well, yeah, you did....every time you deny the fact that geoengineering is a reality being played in REAL LIFE and not via a computer modulation.

Can you explain how asking for evidence for something equates with not believing "that 'science' can be used against us?"

And, the same people that "stopped" the war, are the people that "started" the war.

Do you believe every conspiracy theory ever invented?

You're too stuck in you're own little box, to even think controlling the weather was a possibility.

Actually, knowing what is in the box (as opposed to your approach) lets me know how difficult controlling the weather would be but it does not tell me it's impossible.

Meanwhile, scientists were thinking about changing the weather and ways to do it, DECADES ago.

Yup. And they were thinking about spacecraft powered by atomic bombs too. Scientist think about a lot of stuff. That's their job.

Your thinking, still has us using payphones...and mail carriers on horseback.

No. But your ignorance about what science actually is, would.

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

It's only a "conspiracy theory" to those that don't believe it could be happening. I get the whole "meteorology" thing; but you don't get the whole "aerosol spraying" or "geoengineering" thing, that goes with "meteorology".

Actually, knowing what is in the box (as opposed to your approach) lets me know how difficult controlling the weather would be but it does not tell me it's impossible.

How difficult controlling the weather would be? It's not difficult AT ALL. See, once you get into the smaller particles of life, and have learned to manipulate those particles, the rest is just a matter of practice and fine tuning. We already KNOW what's in the box, they've told us, and explained it to us. You THINK they're not doing it because "legislation" prevents it. And that is where you FALL SHORT! That's the thing you JUST DON'T GET! You think a piece of "legislation" prevents stuff from happening? Maaaaaaaan.

I got property on the moon for sale, with an awesome view. Interested?

Science

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1] In an older and closely related meaning (found, for example, in Aristotle), "science" refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained

Anyone can be a scientist

Since classical antiquity science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern era the words "science" and "philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably in the English language.

Philosophy

The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[4][5][6] The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.[7] A "philosopher" was understood as a word which contrasted with "sophist". Traveling sophists or "wise men" were important in Classical Greece, often earning money as teachers, whereas philosophers are "lovers of wisdom" and not professionals.

Don't make "science" out to be more than it is.

reply to post by profundus

It's only a "conspiracy theory" to those that don't believe it could be happening.

No. There are more than a few conspiracy theories which have been shown to be valid, using actual evidence. So far, after 15 years (at least) of speculation and arm waving, no evidence that "chemtrails" are anything but contrails.

I get the whole "meteorology" thing

No, you don't. You reject it. You don't understand why contrails often precede foul weather. You don't understand that cirrus clouds are the same thing as contrails and have always preceded foul weather.

but you don't get the whole "aerosol spraying" or "geoengineering" thing,

I'm willing to bet I "get it" a lot more than you do. Do you know much about radiative forcing and the effects of aerosols on it?

See, once you get into the smaller particles of life, and have learned to manipulate those particles, the rest is just a matter of practice and fine tuning.

Smaller particles of life? You mean cells? You can control the weather with cells? Yeah, simple. No problem controlling the entire atmosphere of the planet.

reply to post by profundus

Don't make "science" out to be more than it is.

I don't. I know what it is.
You, on the other hand, think it is capable of doing just about anything that you can think of.

Originally posted by fireyaguns
reply to post by Painfulhead

 

Arial Geo Engineering is real and changes the whole discussion as we are not talking about chemtrails but Arial geo engineering.

And yet it isn't actually happening either - there is also no actual evidence for aerial (sic) geoengineering going on at the moment.

There is considerable discussion about it of course - and has been for years.

I have seen also more often these last 10 years, children’s movies and cartoons full of Arial geo engineering back grounds, cars is a good example (I am not saying Arial geo engineering has'nt been going on for many many years, most likely over half a centry).

Because contrails??

The word "chemtrail" is not laughing stock so hte believers have changed terminology - it is now "geoengineering" - but the claims are the same - persistent trails behind planes, secret projects, mostly claiming only done in the last 15 years (this post is an exception - but an increasingly common one as they cannot explain why contrails have been around since WW1 so therefore they have to claim that chemtrails...sorry...geoengineering has been going on decades or else admit they are talking nonsense - changing their story to fit the challenge presented by facts!!)

Hollywood has its minders also like all entities, they have been infiltrated by the synagogue of Satan.

And mystical nonsense

Ther have been contrails in movies for decades - eg see Contrails in movies - including Spartacus

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

It's only a "conspiracy theory" to those that don't believe it could be happening.

No. There are more than a few conspiracy theories which have been shown to be valid, using actual evidence. So far, after 15 years (at least) of speculation and arm waving, no evidence that "chemtrails" are anything but contrails.

I get the whole "meteorology" thing

No, you don't. You reject it. You don't understand why contrails often precede foul weather. You don't understand that cirrus clouds are the same thing as contrails and have always preceded foul weather.

but you don't get the whole "aerosol spraying" or "geoengineering" thing,

I'm willing to bet I "get it" a lot more than you do. Do you know much about radiative forcing and the effects of aerosols on it?

See, once you get into the smaller particles of life, and have learned to manipulate those particles, the rest is just a matter of practice and fine tuning.

Smaller particles of life? You mean cells? You can control the weather with cells? Yeah, simple. No problem controlling the entire atmosphere of the planet.

We're not even on the same LEVEL with comments like this:

Smaller particles of life? You mean cells? You can control the weather with cells? Yeah, simple. No problem controlling the entire atmosphere of the planet.

The guru of "science"??? Hmmm
Particles

The smallest particle in the world is a tie between quarks and leptons. Quarks are the fundamental particles that make neutrons and protons in atoms.

I'm surprised my AVATAR did ring a bell.
Atoms

Atoms are composed of three type of particles: protons, neutrons, and electron. Protons and neutrons are responsible for most of the atomic mass e.g in a 150 person 149 lbs, 15 oz are protons and neutrons while only 1 oz. is electrons. The mass of an electron is very small (9.108 X 10-28 grams). Both the protons and neutrons reside in the nucleus. Protons have a postive (+) charge, neutrons have no charge --they are neutral. Electrons reside in orbitals around the nucleus. They have a negative charge (-). It is the number of protons that determines the atomic number, e.g., H = 1. The number of protons in an element is constant (e.g., H=1, Ur=92) but neutron number may vary, so mass number (protons + neutrons) may vary. The same element may contain varying numbers of neutrons; these forms of an element are called isotopes. The chemical properties of isotopes are the same, although the physical properties of some isotopes may be different. Some isotopes are radioactive-meaning they "radiate" energy as they decay to a more stable form, perhaps another element half-life: time required for half of the atoms of an element to decay into stable form. Another example is oxygen, with atomic number of 8 can have 8, 9, or 10 neutrons.

Manipulating Atoms

By bringing the tip of an STM close to an adsorbed surface atom, the atom can be dragged along and positioned to build atomic-scale artificial structures...

Still want to play: "science class"?

reply to post by profundus

Though some might argue that virii are a form of life, the smallest particles of life are cells.
Atoms and subatomic particles are not life.

We're not even on the same LEVEL

I agree.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Don't make "science" out to be more than it is.

I don't. I know what it is.
You, on the other hand, think it is capable of doing just about anything that you can think of.

Let me REPEAT what you said:

You, on the other hand, think it is capable of doing just about anything that you can think of.

Haven't they? I bet you didn't think TOUCH SCREEN was possible, did you? Go ahead, and LIE and say you knew. I bet you people, born 100 years ago, didn't think HD tv's would be a reality. Attitudes like yours and NOTHING is possible. Anything is POSSIBLE, my friend. ANYTHING!

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Though some might argue that virii are a form of life, the smallest particles of life are cells.
Atoms and subatomic particles are not life.

We're not even on the same LEVEL

I agree.

Some believe a fertilized egg, in a woman's womb isn't life either. Your case is WEAK on all levels.

Edit to add: BTW: i said:

See, once you get into the smaller particles of life, and have learned to manipulate those particles, the rest is just a matter of practice and fine tuning

Don't read what you want to read. Read things in their ENTIRETY. Then, you wouldn't be so confused.

and to think the thread title is "A serious question about chemtrails"
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

reply to post by profundus

Let me REPEAT what you said:

Why? Once was enough. My memory isn't that bad.

Attitudes like yours and NOTHING is possible. Anything is POSSIBLE, my friend. ANYTHING!

I wouldn't go that far. I really don't think it's possible to know what's going on inside a black hole for example. But I'm sure a lot of things we haven't thought of now will be available in a hundred years. Maybe even a limited ability to intentionally affect weather but hopefully along with that ability an understanding of the ramifications would be included.

But since I seem to have misunderstood the point of the post where you said this:

Don't make "science" out to be more than it is.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Maybe you could clarify the point you were trying to make.

Originally posted by profundus

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

You REFUSE to BELIEVE that "science" can be used against us!

Really? I don't recall ever saying anything like that. Did you read my mind or something? If so you did a bad job of it.

Remember the atom bomb??? What PURPOSE did that serve?

It brought a war to and end. That's what it's purpose was.

 

Closed mind?

Yup.

I've taught my brain how to close off things that just DON'T MAKE SENSE.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

We know that things like meteorology don't make sense to you. We know that you don't try to understand them.

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Do me a favor, if you're gonna have a debate with me...stop EDITING your comments. Make your comment, and make sure you know what you want to say, before you click "reply". I've noticed you have a bad habit of doing that. Make your point, and make it clear the 1st time around. Say what you mean, and mean what you say! Don't be changing your script after you click "reply".

I'll actually side with Phage here and say that I do this most posts. There's often something I neaten up or word in a way I think is easier/better to read, or there's typos. I'll probably do it with this post too! (it's mostly rushing to post, then finishing it up after, knowing there's plenty of time to fix minor errors, and that the original post usually has most of the meaning intact.)

And Phage : I have no idea of what document Lisa Martino-Taylor couldn't get hold of, but I'd guess that if you found it so quickly and she made an 838 page dissertation that took years, it's maybe another document.

I'm also with profundus on the legislation thing : when governments make things secret I don't think they really pay attention to law/legislation, etc. And in an age where NDAA can see people arrested indefinitely without trail, what good is the law anyway?

reply to post by profundus

Some believe a fertilized egg, in a woman's womb isn't life either.

No. I don't think anyone would say that, since it is a living cell. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Don't read what you want to read. Read things in their ENTIRETY. Then, you wouldn't be so confused

I read it. I even quoted it in my post. What's your point? You were talking about manipulating cells, apparently to control the weather.

Originally posted by Phage
What's your point? You were talking about manipulating cells, apparently to control the weather.

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Maybe manipulating brain cells via conditioning so that people don't notice the weather!

(I think I managed a post without editing.)

What technology are you in? It's certainly not this type:
Nanotech

Nanotechnology (sometimes shortened to "nanotech") is the manipulation of matter on an atomic and molecular scale.

Here's another tidbit you might like. I don't think you need a reference.

At the surface of the Earth, atoms combine to form various compounds, including water, salt, silicates and oxides

reply to post by profundus

I know what nanotech is.
I know what chemistry is.

Do you know how to express a point you are trying to make?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by profundus

 

Some believe a fertilized egg, in a woman's womb isn't life either.

No. I don't think anyone would say that, since it is a living cell. But that's a topic for a different thread.

Don't read what you want to read. Read things in their ENTIRETY. Then, you wouldn't be so confused

I read it. I even quoted it in my post. What's your point? You were talking about manipulating cells, apparently to control the weather.

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Where did i say ANYTHING about "manipulating cells"? Show me??? PROVE IT. My EXACT QUOTE WAS:

See, once you get into the smaller particles of life, and have learned to manipulate those particles

YOU mentioned about cells. Not me. Perhaps, your comprehension skills need work.

reply to post by profundus

Where did i say ANYTHING about "manipulating cells"?

We just covered that. You just quoted it yourself.

the smaller particles of life

The smallest particles of life are cells.

Molecules are not life.
Atoms are not life.
Subatomic particles are not life.

See, if you had said "the smaller particles of matter" it would have been different. You said "the smaller particles of life." That's what I meant about expressing yourself but maybe we should try to stick to "chemtrails" and all the evidence that they exist.